Disposed

Shri. Satish Yeshwant Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2015WP/780/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their absorption into other schools as surplus. Court observed preliminary objection regarding exhaustion of remedy before Divisional Commissioner. Petition disposed by directing Divisional Commissioner to decide pending appeals within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Divisional Commissioner to decide pending representations/appeals within four weeks.

Shri. Satish Yeshwant Chavan and Ors. Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

30.WP780_2015.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 780 OF 2015

¶5

Satish Yeshwant Chavan … Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/b. Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. DATE : 25^th February, 2015.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

By this Petition, the petitioners have impugned the orders

¶15

absorbing the petitioners, who have been declared surplus, to the other schools.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 raises a preliminary objection to the tenability of the Writ Petition. It is stated that the petitioners have not availed the remedy of approaching the Divisional Commissioner as per Clause 10 of the Government Resolution dated 12^th /18^th May, 2011. It is stated that the petitioners ought to have filed appeals before the Divisional Commissioner, if they were aggrieved by their absorption/transfer in the other schools.

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

30.WP780_2015.doc

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have filed the representations/Appeals before the Divisional Commissioner and the petitioners were required to approach this Court, as the Divisional Commissioner has not decided the representations.

¶20

If that be so, we dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the representations/Appeals filed by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner as early as possible and positively within a period of four weeks. In case, some of the petitioners have not yet made the representation, they may make the same within a period of three weeks and the Divisional Commissioner should decide it within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the same. The points raised in the Writ Petition are kept open. No costs.

¶21

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶22

2 of 2

Shri. Satish Yeshwant Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Satish Yeshwant Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prof. Yashwant Bhagwan Bhide Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rekha Ramratan Tripati Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nalin Choksey Vs State of Maharastra and 4 Anr.

Manoj Kantilal Naya Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 8 Others

Partha Jayesh Vidhani Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Shri. Prasad Gopinath Thorat Vs Shri. Nivritti Fakira Bhandure and Ors.